It seems to me like a poor choice that the New York Times, the newspaper once know as the paper of record but more recently associated with the weapons of mass destruction deception, which helped start a war, and Judith ‘I don’t think it’s a journalist’s job to question the government’ Miller, has decided to endorse Warren and Klobuchar for the Democratic nomination.They’re just going to have to pick somebody else in a few weeks.No matter how the press tries to spin it, the most recent debate, and the day leading up to it, were an absolute disaster for Warren. First, her over reaction to a Bernie staffer suggesting a script for canvassers which was actually not so terribly hostile to Warren at all made her look a bit silly, then the accusation that he’d said ‘a woman can’t win’ which most people realized was bullshit from the get go, and then CNN’s attempt to ambush Bernie with the question and Bernie’s beautiful and simple response, and then her repetition of the charge, then the exchange at the end which may have helped Tom Steyer some but certainly didn’t make her look good.I don’t know if she lost 5% of her support, or 50%, but it was an amount of support she couldn’t afford to lose as she was already slipping in the polls.I could be reading the public wrong, I know she’s got a lot of faithful and dedicated fans, but I don’t think she’s going to have over 15% in the Iowa caucuses, and Bernie is going to thrash her in New Hampshire.Klobuchar (and maybe this is what the NYT is thinking) might be the beneficiary of Warren’s collapse, because it’s either her or Tulsi Gabbard if they want to commit to a woman, and the women who love Elizabeth Warren because they hate Bernie Sanders hate Tulsi Gabbard almost as much. Still, even if Klobuchar were to gain 10 points between now and February, she still wouldn’t clear 15%. So, the New York Times is just whistling into the wind, and I can’t quite understand why.